KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

34,020/- and the same was registered on 12/12/2013. The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee only entered into an agreement of sale on 10/11/2009 to purchase the property however it was registered in December, 2013 vide sale deed dated 12/12/2013. The Ld. Pr. CIT also observed that the assessee sold the property for Rs.92,50,000/-on 26/3/2015

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case In one assessment year) and then conclude the proceedings in the case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment

NAGESWARA RAO VISWANADHA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital Gains (STCG). The Ld. AO also further observed that the assessee has sold two properties and received his share of sale consideration of Rs. 3,95,70,000/- and after adjusting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,95,20,000/-, the assessee offered Rs. 50,000/- towards STCG. 3 The Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has adopted

YALAVARTHY PADMA PRIYA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 350/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Yellavarthy Padma Priya V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-6-6/5, Flat No. 401 C.R. Building, M.G. Road Sri Sai Plaza, Basavapunnaiah Street Vijayawada Gunadala Vijayawada – 520005 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adapy6673L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 148A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2022. It was noticed that the assessee has sold the impugned property for a consideration of Rs.1,42,44,000/- on 12.09.2017 which was misreported as Rs.2,84,88,.000/- in the notice. Assessee has offered long term capital gain of Rs. 1,34

MURALI MOHAN REDDY BONTHU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and served on the assessee through ITBA Portal. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,34,400/- on 21.02.2022 by claiming exemption for long term capital gains

VIJAPURAPU SUDHA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

capital gains of Rs. 34,65,000/- on sale of vacant site admeasuring 231 sq yds at Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam. On receiving the information by the Department that during the FY 2016-17 relevant to the AY 2017-18 the assessee sold an immovable property to Mrs. Pusapati Appala Narsimha Raju for a total consideration of Rs. 34

GOVINDAMMA ISIREDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Govindamma Isireddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(4), Pan: Afipi4540L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 27/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Thane, Dated 12/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 28/12/2019 For 2 Govindamma Isireddy Vs. Ito

capital gains be deleted in full, and the appeal of the Appellant be allowed.” 3 Govindamma Isireddy vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 04/01/2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,34,900/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under section

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

34 of the 1922 Act, the legal requirement of service of notice upon the Assessee in terms of Section 148 read with section 282(1) and Section 153(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been effected under section

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

34 of the 1922 Act, the legal requirement of service of notice upon the Assessee in terms of Section 148 read with section 282(1) and Section 153(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been effected under section

MAHESH KUDARAVALLI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.230/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

34,970/- from ‘salary’ and ‘other sources’ after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act to tune of Rs. 1,63,000/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of ‘cash deposits during demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on 9/8/2018 and the same was duly served on the assessee on 13/08/2018. Thereafter, notice

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

capital gain of Rs.13.26 crores (supra) disclosed by the assessee company on sale of the subject agricultural 9 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited land and was accepted in the course of the original assessment, inter alia, on two grounds viz., (i). that the reopening of the reassessment by the successor A.O. based on a “change of opinion

PERFEX TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.477/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) V. Profex Technocrats Private Limited Income Tax Officer –Ward-3(3) 38-44-2/12, Jyothinagar Income Tax Office Marripalem Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh -530018 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Aaccp1426A] Andhra Pradesh - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144 of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 48,89,370/- by making addition of Rs. 14,76,440/- being 12.5% on gross receipts of Rs. 1,18,11,521/- and also added Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 34

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Capital Gains as directed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show-cause notice dated 27.12.2018, 31.05.2021 and 21.06.2021. In response, assessee cited various judicial pronouncements wherein the Ld. AO has failed to mark the proper limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which